Teachers Who Understand The Characteristics Of Technology ✓ Solved

Teachers who understand the characteristics of technically s

Teachers who understand the characteristics of technically sound formal and informal assessments are better prepared to create such assessments and analyze the data they produce. Academic, cognitive, behavioral, and functional living assessments provide specific insight into the strengths and needs of students. In turn, teachers can use assessment data to guide instructional decisions for his or her students. Complete the “Diagnostic Assessment Graphic Organizer Template.” Cite the sources used to gather the information. While APA format is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and in-text citations and references should be presented using APA documentation guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

Diagnostic Assessments Graphic Organizer Template

Assessment

Application of the Assessment

Assessment Measures

Publication Date of the Assessment

Applicable Age/Grade Levels

Type of Scores

Yielded

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test – 3rd edition

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – 4th edition

Conners – 3rd edition

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales – 2nd edition

Assessment of Your Choice

Resources: © 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction and rationale. Diagnostic and educational assessments occupy a central role in shaping effective instruction for diverse learners. When educators select diagnostically sound tools, they gain not only a snapshot of current abilities and needs but also directional data that informs instruction, supports early intervention, and tracks progress over time. The characteristics of technically sound formal and informal assessments include reliability, validity, fairness, appropriate norming, practicality, and alignment with curriculum and learning targets (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, 2014). These standards ensure that data collected from various instruments truly reflect a student’s competencies and challenges rather than measurement error, bias, or misalignment with instructional goals (APA, 2020). This paper analyzes the Diagnostic Assessments Graphic Organizer Template, describes how to populate the organizer with four common instruments (WIAT-III, WISC-IV, Conners-3, Vineland-II), discusses the implications of each measure for instructional decision making, and outlines best practices for integrating multiple data sources to support students’ academic, cognitive, behavioral, and adaptive functioning needs (Brookhart, 2013; Popham, 2008).

Understanding the role and scope of diagnostic assessments. Diagnostic assessments are designed to identify specific learning gaps, cognitive processes, behavioral patterns, and adaptive functioning that influence a student’s ability to participate in and benefit from instruction. They go beyond screening or progress monitoring by providing detailed specifications about strengths and areas for growth, often across multiple domains. When used effectively, these tools help teachers tailor instruction, differentiate tasks, and set measurable goals (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Stiggins, 2005). In addition, integrating multiple instruments—from achievement tests to behavioral scales—offers a holistic view of a student’s functioning, enabling more precise interventions and supports (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004). The present framework emphasizes standard-based interpretation, cross-domain synthesis, and the ethical use of assessment data in service of equitable instruction (AERA/APA/NCME, 2014).

Overview of the four instruments and their roles. The Wechsler Individual Achievement Test—Third Edition (WIAT-III) is an achievement battery that assesses reading, mathematics, written language, and oral language, providing a direct index of academic skills relative to age- or grade-level norms. It is particularly useful for identifying specific skill deficits, such as decoding or calculation problems, which can drive targeted instructional planning (Wechsler, 2009). The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) is an intelligence measure that evaluates cognitive abilities that underlie academic performance, including verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, working memory, and processing speed. While not a direct measure of achievement, a comprehensive cognitive profile helps interpret uneven performance across educational tasks and may reveal processing strengths that teachers can leverage (Wechsler, 2003/2004). The Conners—Third Edition (Conners-3) is a behavioral rating scale used to assess attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and related behaviors from multiple informants (e.g., parent, teacher). It informs decisions about behavior supports, classroom management, and executive function interventions, particularly when classroom behavior intersects with learning demands (Conners, 2008). The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales—Second Edition (Vineland-II) assesses adaptive functioning across communication, socialization, daily living skills, and motor skills. This instrument provides a functional profile that is valuable for planning supports in educational and home contexts, especially for students with developmental or intellectual disabilities where adaptive deficits may affect participation and learning (Sparrow, Balla, & Cicchetti, 2005).

Assessing applicability and score interpretation. Each instrument has specific applications, normative groups, and scoring conventions. WIAT-III yields standard scores, percentile ranks, and a composite achievement profile that guides instructional planning, resource allocation, and progress monitoring. WISC-IV yields index scores and a full-scale IQ that contextually informs the complexity of cognitive processing demands in classroom tasks, aiding differential diagnosis and individualized planning when cognitive processing differences underlie learning profiles (Wechsler, 2009; Wechsler, 2003/2004). Conners-3 provides domain scores and clinical cutoffs for inattention, hyperactivity, and executive function concerns, supporting targeted behavior interventions and classroom accommodations (Conners, 2008). Vineland-II outputs adaptive behavior standard scores and domain-level profiles, which are critical when considering independent living and social-emotional development alongside academic goals (Sparrow et al., 2005). Integrating information from these tools requires careful interpretation to avoid over-reliance on any single source; triangulation—combining data from achievement, cognitive, behavioral, and adaptive measures—yields a robust picture of a student’s learning needs (American Educational Research Association et al., 2014; Brookhart, 2013).

Filling the Diagnostic Assessments Graphic Organizer Template. The template invites a structured synthesis of assessment data. For each instrument, educators should record: (a) the measurement purpose and construct, (b) how the assessment data will be used to inform instruction, (c) the exact measures employed, (d) publication or administration dates, (e) the appropriate age or grade levels, (f) the type of scores generated (e.g., standard scores, percentiles, scale scores), and (g) the specific outcomes yielded by the tool. Completing this organizer systematically ensures transparent decision making and clear communication with families about assessment results and recommended supports (Popham, 2008; Brookhart, 2013). Teachers should document both strengths and needs, identify actionable instructional strategies, and note any limitations or considerations such as test biases or formative opportunities linked to the curriculum. When applicable, the organizer should also include a brief justification for choosing a particular instrument (e.g., WIAT-III for targeted literacy deficits or Vineland-II for adaptive skill gaps) and a plan for follow-up assessment to monitor progress or adjust supports over time (APA, 2020).

Interpretive considerations and instructional implications. Interpreting data across multiple measures requires careful alignment with curriculum standards and student learning goals. For example, a student may demonstrate adequate word recognition on WIAT-III but show weaknesses in working memory on WISC-IV, suggesting that decoding instruction should be paired with working memory supports such as chunking information and reducing cognitive load. A high score in adaptive daily living skills on Vineland-II alongside modest academic achievement might indicate readiness for independent tasks and real-world project work that reinforces academic content while developing functional competencies. Inattention scores on Conners-3 can guide behavior supports and classroom accommodations, yet educators should examine whether behavior concerns are interfering with learning tasks or reflect environmental or instructional factors rather than intrinsic deficits (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004; American Educational Research Association et al., 2014). Integrating these data points supports a holistic, student-centered approach to instruction rather than a compartmentalized view of ability and behavior (Popham, 2008; Stiggins, 2005).

Ethical considerations and documentation. Ethical use of diagnostic data requires transparent communication with families, consent where appropriate, and careful interpretation to avoid stigmatization or mislabeling. Standards for educational and psychological testing emphasize fair test use, validity, reliability, and cultural fairness; practitioners should attend to potential biases and ensure that interpretations consider language, cultural background, and prior learning opportunities (AERA et al., 2014). Documentation should reflect the rationale for selecting each instrument, the integration of data across sources, and the resulting instructional recommendations. When reporting results, educators should present clear action steps, including specific accommodations, modifications, and progress monitoring plans to support ongoing improvement (APA, 2020; Brookhart, 2013).

Conclusion and practical guidance. The Diagnostic Assessments Graphic Organizer Template offers a pragmatic scaffold for organizing diverse data sources into an actionable instructional plan. By combining achievement data (WIAT-III), cognitive processing information (WISC-IV), behavioral ratings (Conners-3), and adaptive functioning (Vineland-II), teachers can develop targeted interventions that address both academic and functional competencies. The key to effective practice is not merely collecting data but translating it into explicit instructional steps, progress checks, and communicating findings with families in a respectful, accurate, and timely manner. Adhering to established standards for assessment, maintaining transparency, and applying evidence-based instructional strategies will enhance the likelihood of successful outcomes for students with varied learning profiles (American Educational Research Association et al., 2014; Popham, 2008; Black & Wiliam, 1998).

References to the standard and test-specific materials are integrated as part of this analysis to support the justified use of these instruments in instructional planning and decision making. The combination of empirical guidelines and instrument-specific information helps educators implement diagnostic assessments that are technically sound, ethically administered, and educationally meaningful for students across diverse learning contexts (APA, 2020; AERA et al., 2014; Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004; Sparrow, Balla, & Cicchetti, 2005; Wechsler, 2009; Wechsler, 2003/2004; Conners, 2008; Brookhart, 2013; Popham, 2008; Black & Wiliam, 1998).

References

  1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
  2. American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  3. Brookhart, S. (2013). How to Create and Use Rubrics for Formative Assessment in the Classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
  4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.
  5. Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative Assessment. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
  6. Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D. A., & Cicchetti, D. V. (2005). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition. Circle Pines, MN: AGS.
  7. Wechsler, D. (2009). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test—Third Edition (WIAT-III). San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
  8. Wechsler, D. (2003/2004). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fourth Edition (WISC-IV). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
  9. Conners, C. K. (2008). Conners-3: Technical Manual. Toronto, Ontario: Multi-Health Systems.
  10. Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2004). Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second Edition (BASC-2). Circle Pines, MN: Pearson.

Related Assignments